All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The President and his administration have been systematically usurping or undermining the Congressional power of legislation. Consider Article II, Section 3:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Emphasis mine, obviously. This is a classic example of the problems with single-party power...even as their power is being illegally undermined, Congressional leaders will not challenge the president for fear of weakening the all-important party. They place personal gain over the Constitution and the nation.
I'm not likely to live to see copyright expire on the iTMS songs in my iTunes library, but my kids might. Yet no DRM system I'm aware of makes allowance for passage into public domain.
Copyright must be limited; apparently it can be a hell of a long limit, but Constitutionally it must be limited in the U.S. And everyone knows that digital files don't age--as long as you keep them on fresh media they will sound just as good (if not better) 300 years from now. Yet there are no limits placed into DRM systems, nor sunset provisions to remove the DRM when the copyright expires.
This seems to me to be a system that actually prevents compliance with a Constitutional mandate. Why hasn't this been an avenue of legal challenge to DRM yet?
When a person is sued they can either a) pay a lawyer to defend them or b) pay the plaintiff to settle the suit. The RIAA makes it clear that they will do whatever it takes to make sure a is greater than b.
This is extortion.
Why? Because it does not depend on whether the person has actually done anything wrong. Instead the RIAA wields a side-effect of our justice system (cost) as a weapon against whoever they please. Whether they can prove anything makes little difference, it is simply a matter of cost.
Consider this: although piracy can be prosecuted as a crime, the RIAA never follows that path. They always go civil. This way they can neatly avoid the solution of a court-appointed attorney, and they do not have to deal with the police and DA, who have a pesky habit of actually evaluating the merits of cases before going forward. By keeping it civil the RIAA is free to file against whoever the hell they want, no matter how slim the evidence.
By initiating lawsuits against those who willfully, without the consent of the copyright holders, infringe copyrights, it's hard to see how they're "alienating their core market".
How do you know that the defendants are in fact willfully infringing copyrights? They never have the cash to make their case and fight it out in court. From my perspective it's pretty alienating to know that I could be taken to the cleaners for thousands by an industry association, even if I did nothing wrong.
Seriously. There is no way you're passing people continously for 150 miles.
If someone is sitting on your ass in the passing lane, it is because they want to pass you. Your responsibility is to pull right at the first reasonable opportunity and let them by. I don't understand why you would sit there cursing them for 150 miles instead of just letting them by.
Besides it's the smart move...the cars going faster than you make great speed trap bait if you let them by.
instead of taking 30 seconds to change lanes,
It's illegal and dangerous to pass on the right. Yes, I know it's also illegal and dangerous to speed, but I think it's more dangerous to force a speeding person to also pass on the right--now you've combined two dangers.
The rules of the road are practical. They're designed to create a relatively predictable environment--fast on the left, slower on the right. Moving right to allow someone by fits within that paradigm and maintains predictability. Forcing someone who is already going fast to move right to pass subverts the paradigm, decreases predictability, and IMO increases danger.
So please for my safety if not yours, let the asshole in the big truck by on the left.
I agree with you 100% on the parking lot speeding though.
The injured might choose to make an additional claim against the car company, but it would not absolve the driver of criminal or civil liability. If nothing else, they chose to engage the system.
Social Security and Medicare are consistently highly rated for the efficiency of their operations. They both have costs that are very low when considered as a percentage of the payments they disburse. They are government success stories in that respect.
You're probably thinking of the funding issue, which is NOT a failing of the government but rather a failing of the society. The U.S. is a democratic republic--our leaders vote for what is popular. And nothing gets the populace riled up like threats to the holy Social Security and Medicare benefits. In a democracy, the political will must ultimately come from the people, not the leaders. But without a crisis, there is no political will to change the status quo.
The President tried to change the Social Security paradigm, and failed in the face of mass popular resistance. Is that a government that failed, or the people?
An ego helps you be ok with declining those Outlook meeting requests. They are called "requests" for a reason.
Availability tracking is a GOOD thing, but only if the people using the system are adults. Freaking out over meeting requests is not really the best way to handle it. Block out essential time, feel free to decline or propose a new time, and deal with the fact that some of the time you'll have to go to a meeting you don't want to.
If the problem is that your boss has no respect for your schedule or hours, well, I'd say that's a much bigger problem than Outlook.
And what is to protect the inventor from the manufacturer just taking his idea and giving him nothing? The inventor would not legally own the idea under a system of no patents.
The engineer need not reveal the internal workings to demonstrate capabilities. Or, he could request signature of an NDA/noncompete, which are contracts that do not rely on patents for their strength.
Lack of patents does not imply complete lack of intellectual property law; rather it implies a treatment of intellectual property based on negotiation and contracts, rather than government-created and -enforced monopolies. Patents are only one legal paradigm for treating the larger concept of intellectual property.
The goverment does not "give" you ownership of your own ideas with patents. Your ideas are your ideas naturally. A patent is simply one way to protect an idea that naturally belongs to you. Imagine a situation where two people develop the same idea at the same time, independently. If one is faster to the patent office it does not mean that the other no longer "owns" his idea. It simply means that he is prohibited from developing it commercially. If you think about it that way, patents make little sense! Without patents both people would be free to develop their own ideas and compete in the marketplace.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure getting rid of patents altogether is a great idea. However I also don't think patents are the only possible way to deal with intellectual property. I can understand how a system could work without them.
Let's say some guy develops that mythical 100 MPG gasoline engine. Shouldn't he be able to patent it?
Under the current system, the inventor of this engine is incented to seek media coverage as early as possible, to establish that he was first with this idea (establishing prior art). He then files for a patent, which takes two to three years to complete the process. During that time his invention is public knowledge as patent applications are not secret. Finally he receives his patent and sells or licenses it to a manufacturer, who begins development of cars based on that engine. A year and some change later the first model hits the streets. Meanwhile the competitors have been studying the concept for four years and are ready with either their version of it (patents not being THAT hard to work around), or a worthy competitor, or FUD to bring it down.
Under a system of no patents, the inventor is incented AGAINST seeking media coverage, and toward making an agreement with a manufacturer to bring the product to market ASAP. He signs a deal with a manufacturer and they begin development. A year and some change later the first product hits the market (two to three years earlier than under the current system). It is only at that point that other manufacturers learn of this invention, and then they scramble to reverse-engineer and study it. They have no copy, no competitor, and no FUD ready. Meanwhile the first manufacturer and the inventor have at least a full year's lead into the market with an amazing new product.
I like to listen to music sometimes when I work, or when I'm riding the Subway, or when I'm walking a mile home from the subway, or when I'm driving. Not all the time, but sometimes I really want to hear a certain song or album.
Having an iPod with all my music on it means that whenever the mood strikes me I can listen to whichever of my music I want to. It's literally freedom--the freedom to listen to what I want, when I want, easily and quickly.
You could just as easily have asked "what is this new perceived need to make or take phone calls anywhere" or "what is this new perceived need to use your computer anywhere you want." But chances are you probably have and use a cellphone and maybe a laptop too.
Such freedom is the future, might as well get used to it. More power, more portability.
This, like most market share numbers, does not make a distinction between consumer and business purchases. As we all know, businesses buy a lot of computers, almost all non-Mac (either Windows desktops or *nix servers). This is significant in the context of TFA because it's extremely unlikely that all these business-owned computers are going to be downloading or playing movies. If you were to look at the targetted market of consumer households who are likely to pay to download movies, my guess is that the Mac share would be significantly larger than 1.8%.
IME most of the people whining about the death of the humor are those who stopped watching it years ago. In other words they have little actual current data to base their opinions on...they're just repeating the meme that the Simpsons is washed up.
I still watch it and think it's great. It's not as funny to me as the classic episodes, but then again, they weren't that funny the first time I saw them either. It takes at least two repetitions for all the jokes to sink in in my experience, and repetition enhances many of the "classic" jokes...anticipation of the joke adds to the humor, as does social reinforcement (i.e. all the cliches that get thrown around).
The Simpsons is still one of the funniest character-driven shows on TV right now, along with Earl and The Office. The Family Guy and South Park are gag-driven humor, more like animated Saturday Night Live sketches, or the movie Airplane. They make absolutely no attempt to make you care about the characters, who are simply broad caricatures for the gags to play out against. When it's funny, it's really funny. But that's all they have, and as a result each show has a lot of awkward misses (just like SNL).
The Simpsons on the other hand can swing dramatic and ratchet up the tension, which then allows for comic relief and added comedic release. The best example is the death of Maude, which was both an emotional and hilarious episode.
It's a real TV show as opposed to a collection of silly bits...I find it much more rewarding to watch on a regular basis. The Family Guy on the other hand I can drop in and out of whenever I want and there never seems to be any difference.
These are the talking points of people who haven't bought an Apple product and don't intend to. Asking them why Apple is popular is like asking a conservative to explain why someone would support a liberal candidate. You're going to get a pretty biased, inaccurate view. If you want to know why people do something, you'll get the best answer if you simply ask them--not the critics.
And don't be shocked when you get a bunch of different answers. Different people do things for different reasons...successful companies are the ones that provide a lot of good reasons (not just one) to buy their product.
Of course 82% of the people think the government covered up some of what happened on 9/11. The question is so broad as to mean nothing--I would answer yes to such a broad question, and I think all the big conspiracy theories are nuts. I just happen to think that the administration has squashed some of the details of how poorly prepared they were and how poorly they responded.
As for the rest, I don't really care about supposition, vague connections, and unanswered questions. It's not exactly a revelation that certain people have profited in the wake of 9/11...however that has little to any bearing on the question of what brought down the WTC, as it could just as easily be the result of good response as opposed to good conspiracy. People profit during every war; but it is false logic to conclude that therefore those people must have started each war.
The government and military plan for eventualities; but it is wrong to therefore assume that everthing that happens is the result of a military or government plan. The government can plan a plane crash, and a plane can crash--the two are not necessarily connected. Substitute "sneak attack", "insurgency", or "hurricane" (or any other force majeur) into that sentence if you like. Similarity or congruency are simply coincedence in the absence of evidence that proves a direct connection.
I noticed you did not answer my question about what evidence would change your mind on this theory. Here's mine: Present me with real conclusive proof of this specific conspiracy theory and I will sit up and take notice: a person who helped set the charges...paperwork showing that thousands of pounds of explosives were delivered to the WTC by a military contractor...maintenance workers who saw barrels of explosives in empty offices...etc. I need direct, cause-and-effect evidence...often referred to as a "smoking gun." Allusion and supposition don't do it for me.
It is the first-hand testimony of expert witnesses.
Hearing loud noises that sounded like explosions is the testimony of an eye-witness. However in the context of a controlled-demolition theory, it is hearsay. A number of things sound like or cause explosions; firefighters are not experts in controlled demolition. I'm not questioning what they heard; I'm questioning the use of it as absolute proof of a controlled demolition.
Why are you assuming that charges would be visible to the public?
Because as far as I know it's not possible to turn hundreds of 55-gallon drums and miles of wire invisible. This is what it would take to bring down buildings the size of WTC 1 or 2 or 7 by controlled demolition. And it's not just the amount of equipment, it's the time needed to set it all up, troubleshoot, and test to make sure it will work when they press the button. Tens of thousands of people moved throughout the WTC buildings every day, presumably including a maintenance staff of hundreds for the building facilities in the core and behind locked doors. You're asking me to believe that somehow no one saw anything, or that they were all in on it.
There are plenty of people who will never buy it.
I'll buy something if it's well sold--this theory is not. But let me turn this around--what would convince YOU that the controlled-demolition theory is wrong? Keeping in mind that the vast preponderance of evidence and expert opinion already points that way. Please be specific about what evidence you still require.
Were used throughout the middle ages in both Asia and Europe. You don't think knights were wearing cast iron do you? The use of steel in Japanese swords dates back at least 500 years from today, for example.
- "They looked like controlled demolitions"...but what is the basis for comparison? How many people repeating this line have ever witnessed or even seen video of an *uncontrolled* demolition of a skyscraper--other than the WTC buildings? In other words the visual similarity is TRUE, however it is not necessarily UNEXPECTED. ALL demolitions of tall buildings will look similar, regardless of how they are initiated. Even if you blow out one side first, the building won't tip over like a coat rack. Remove support and the mass being supported falls--straight down.
- The buildings did not fall neatly into their footprints. Look at this picture:
- There were thousands of people in the buildings that day. The first attack took place around 9am--after many people had arrived at work. In fact the estimate is that at least 10,000 people were in WTC 1 and 2 when the first plane hit. They had arrived by subway, walking, cab, and driving--some had parked in the garage. They proceeded through the building that morning as normal. After the first hit, most of them evacuated safely--almost everyone below the point of impact in both buildings. YET not one of them has come forward with stories of seeing the building pillars in the parking garage wrapped with drums and det wire. No one had stories of elaborately laid wire harnesses throughout the floors of the building. Not that morning or any morning previous.
Wiring a building for controlled demolition is not a quick thing. It takes a long time to load in the explosives and wire it all up safely and reliably. And it's not something easily hidden. It's hard to bring down buildings like the WTC-- a big truck bomb won't do it. You have to distribute a lot of explosive around a lot of the support structure and set it all off in just the right sequence. It would probably be impossible to hide, especially in a building like the WTC towers, where the outer shell carries so much of the weight.
Yes, the firefighters heard noises that sounded like explosions. But I'm not interested in hearsay--I want to hear from the people who eye-witnessed demolition charges and equipment set that morning. Until then I'm not buying it.
Pining for OS 9 is the A #1 best way to spot a hardcore Apple fanboy. Only people who truly fetishize the company and its history miss that OS (or any that preceded it). Those of us who like to get stuff done with our Macs love OS X now.
(Written on an iBook G4 w/10.3, as someone still running a Powermac 6100 with OS 8.6 in my study...but that's because I'm cheap, not because I think it was great.)
That when it comes to preventing dupes, a community approach is no better than an editorial approach. Thus let's have the end of the "Digg is teh better" trolls.
I work for a trade association with a staff of about 400. Because of the nature of trade associations (divided into lots of little side groups), we have about 25 individual Web sites with probably about 7000-9000 pages of content and light Web apps. We outsource our hosting and LAN to a contractor (they have offices within the building though).
We are actually in the process of taking a "Web Team" of 7 people and diffusing it into the Communications department as a whole. We were a cohesive group dedicated to all Web presence inside and out. Now the responsibilities have been sub-divided and spread throughout about 10 people in the Comm. department (not all of them work on Web or e-mail full time). In addition we run a CMS and have about 50 people throughout the organization trained to make basic content updates to the site.
We have grown continuously over the last 5 years despite having a COO who asks us in meetings "Why does the Web site matter? Why do we even need one?" The key for us has been two-fold. First, we define metrics for the online products and show constant improvement. Page views are up year over year, e-commerce is up year-over-year (mostly event registration and publication sales), etc. Second, we enlist supporters throughout the building by making the things people already do easier or more effective by taking it online. We focus HEAVILY on internal customer service and it's very important to keep people in the building happy. We won't get cut because too many people would complain.
It is my personal opinion that our diffusement is only the beginning of the end for "Web Teams." Staff here, even VPs, do not have typists or secretaries taking dication any more. They don't send every memo through the print shop for layout. Some basic facility with typing and the features of Microsoft Word are now just an understood part of corporate life. It is my opinion that as the tools get easier, and the generation turns over, basic facility with the Web will be the same way. I bet within 10 years policy staff will be directly updating their sections of the site themselves, and in 20 VPs will too. They won't be using HTML any more than they use Quark now; they will be using a new tool that makes it easier to work on Web pages--probably a more advanced CMS.
Remember, every generally accepted scientific theory today started life as a fringe theory that the general consensus held was wrong. This is why groups like the NSA, DARPA, CIA etc continue to investigate "stupid" stuff like teleportation, mind control, hyperspace, gravity control, etc. 99% is probably BS, but there's a good bet that some fringe theory or phenomenon today will evolve into generally accepted wisdom within the next 50 years. If you're not looking at the edges of science you won't see where its reach is expanding.
As a U.S. citizen I have to admit that I feel pride as well as outrage at hearing all these stories. The first job of any government is to protect its citizens from international harm, and winning consistently at this sort of international intrigue is one way to do it. In fact I'd say that in some ways it's a good way of accomplishing national security in that it depends more on lying and less on firebombing. (neither being great but firebombing considerably less great in my view)
I know it's wrong to screw our allies, but on the other hand alliances can shift. The U.S. has fought both Japan and Britain on our own soil in the past, and seen many allies turn to enemies (Iraq for instance). There is something to be said for always attempting to maintain an advantage in international relationships. It's not a bridge club after all.
Slashdot Mirror
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
c les/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/?p age=full
Now read this report from the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/arti
The President and his administration have been systematically usurping or undermining the Congressional power of legislation. Consider Article II, Section 3:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Emphasis mine, obviously. This is a classic example of the problems with single-party power...even as their power is being illegally undermined, Congressional leaders will not challenge the president for fear of weakening the all-important party. They place personal gain over the Constitution and the nation.
I'm not likely to live to see copyright expire on the iTMS songs in my iTunes library, but my kids might. Yet no DRM system I'm aware of makes allowance for passage into public domain.
Copyright must be limited; apparently it can be a hell of a long limit, but Constitutionally it must be limited in the U.S. And everyone knows that digital files don't age--as long as you keep them on fresh media they will sound just as good (if not better) 300 years from now. Yet there are no limits placed into DRM systems, nor sunset provisions to remove the DRM when the copyright expires.
This seems to me to be a system that actually prevents compliance with a Constitutional mandate. Why hasn't this been an avenue of legal challenge to DRM yet?
When a person is sued they can either a) pay a lawyer to defend them or b) pay the plaintiff to settle the suit. The RIAA makes it clear that they will do whatever it takes to make sure a is greater than b.
This is extortion.
Why? Because it does not depend on whether the person has actually done anything wrong. Instead the RIAA wields a side-effect of our justice system (cost) as a weapon against whoever they please. Whether they can prove anything makes little difference, it is simply a matter of cost.
Consider this: although piracy can be prosecuted as a crime, the RIAA never follows that path. They always go civil. This way they can neatly avoid the solution of a court-appointed attorney, and they do not have to deal with the police and DA, who have a pesky habit of actually evaluating the merits of cases before going forward. By keeping it civil the RIAA is free to file against whoever the hell they want, no matter how slim the evidence.
By initiating lawsuits against those who willfully, without the consent of the copyright holders, infringe copyrights, it's hard to see how they're "alienating their core market".
How do you know that the defendants are in fact willfully infringing copyrights? They never have the cash to make their case and fight it out in court. From my perspective it's pretty alienating to know that I could be taken to the cleaners for thousands by an industry association, even if I did nothing wrong.
Seriously. There is no way you're passing people continously for 150 miles.
If someone is sitting on your ass in the passing lane, it is because they want to pass you. Your responsibility is to pull right at the first reasonable opportunity and let them by. I don't understand why you would sit there cursing them for 150 miles instead of just letting them by.
Besides it's the smart move...the cars going faster than you make great speed trap bait if you let them by.
instead of taking 30 seconds to change lanes,
It's illegal and dangerous to pass on the right. Yes, I know it's also illegal and dangerous to speed, but I think it's more dangerous to force a speeding person to also pass on the right--now you've combined two dangers.
The rules of the road are practical. They're designed to create a relatively predictable environment--fast on the left, slower on the right. Moving right to allow someone by fits within that paradigm and maintains predictability. Forcing someone who is already going fast to move right to pass subverts the paradigm, decreases predictability, and IMO increases danger.
So please for my safety if not yours, let the asshole in the big truck by on the left.
I agree with you 100% on the parking lot speeding though.
The injured might choose to make an additional claim against the car company, but it would not absolve the driver of criminal or civil liability. If nothing else, they chose to engage the system.
Social Security and Medicare are consistently highly rated for the efficiency of their operations. They both have costs that are very low when considered as a percentage of the payments they disburse. They are government success stories in that respect.
You're probably thinking of the funding issue, which is NOT a failing of the government but rather a failing of the society. The U.S. is a democratic republic--our leaders vote for what is popular. And nothing gets the populace riled up like threats to the holy Social Security and Medicare benefits. In a democracy, the political will must ultimately come from the people, not the leaders. But without a crisis, there is no political will to change the status quo.
The President tried to change the Social Security paradigm, and failed in the face of mass popular resistance. Is that a government that failed, or the people?
An ego helps you be ok with declining those Outlook meeting requests. They are called "requests" for a reason.
Availability tracking is a GOOD thing, but only if the people using the system are adults. Freaking out over meeting requests is not really the best way to handle it. Block out essential time, feel free to decline or propose a new time, and deal with the fact that some of the time you'll have to go to a meeting you don't want to.
If the problem is that your boss has no respect for your schedule or hours, well, I'd say that's a much bigger problem than Outlook.
And what is to protect the inventor from the manufacturer just taking his idea and giving him nothing? The inventor would not legally own the idea under a system of no patents.
The engineer need not reveal the internal workings to demonstrate capabilities. Or, he could request signature of an NDA/noncompete, which are contracts that do not rely on patents for their strength.
Lack of patents does not imply complete lack of intellectual property law; rather it implies a treatment of intellectual property based on negotiation and contracts, rather than government-created and -enforced monopolies. Patents are only one legal paradigm for treating the larger concept of intellectual property.
The goverment does not "give" you ownership of your own ideas with patents. Your ideas are your ideas naturally. A patent is simply one way to protect an idea that naturally belongs to you. Imagine a situation where two people develop the same idea at the same time, independently. If one is faster to the patent office it does not mean that the other no longer "owns" his idea. It simply means that he is prohibited from developing it commercially. If you think about it that way, patents make little sense! Without patents both people would be free to develop their own ideas and compete in the marketplace.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure getting rid of patents altogether is a great idea. However I also don't think patents are the only possible way to deal with intellectual property. I can understand how a system could work without them.
Let's say some guy develops that mythical 100 MPG gasoline engine. Shouldn't he be able to patent it?
Under the current system, the inventor of this engine is incented to seek media coverage as early as possible, to establish that he was first with this idea (establishing prior art). He then files for a patent, which takes two to three years to complete the process. During that time his invention is public knowledge as patent applications are not secret. Finally he receives his patent and sells or licenses it to a manufacturer, who begins development of cars based on that engine. A year and some change later the first model hits the streets. Meanwhile the competitors have been studying the concept for four years and are ready with either their version of it (patents not being THAT hard to work around), or a worthy competitor, or FUD to bring it down.
Under a system of no patents, the inventor is incented AGAINST seeking media coverage, and toward making an agreement with a manufacturer to bring the product to market ASAP. He signs a deal with a manufacturer and they begin development. A year and some change later the first product hits the market (two to three years earlier than under the current system). It is only at that point that other manufacturers learn of this invention, and then they scramble to reverse-engineer and study it. They have no copy, no competitor, and no FUD ready. Meanwhile the first manufacturer and the inventor have at least a full year's lead into the market with an amazing new product.
I like to listen to music sometimes when I work, or when I'm riding the Subway, or when I'm walking a mile home from the subway, or when I'm driving. Not all the time, but sometimes I really want to hear a certain song or album.
Having an iPod with all my music on it means that whenever the mood strikes me I can listen to whichever of my music I want to. It's literally freedom--the freedom to listen to what I want, when I want, easily and quickly.
You could just as easily have asked "what is this new perceived need to make or take phone calls anywhere" or "what is this new perceived need to use your computer anywhere you want." But chances are you probably have and use a cellphone and maybe a laptop too.
Such freedom is the future, might as well get used to it. More power, more portability.
This, like most market share numbers, does not make a distinction between consumer and business purchases. As we all know, businesses buy a lot of computers, almost all non-Mac (either Windows desktops or *nix servers). This is significant in the context of TFA because it's extremely unlikely that all these business-owned computers are going to be downloading or playing movies. If you were to look at the targetted market of consumer households who are likely to pay to download movies, my guess is that the Mac share would be significantly larger than 1.8%.
IME most of the people whining about the death of the humor are those who stopped watching it years ago. In other words they have little actual current data to base their opinions on...they're just repeating the meme that the Simpsons is washed up.
I still watch it and think it's great. It's not as funny to me as the classic episodes, but then again, they weren't that funny the first time I saw them either. It takes at least two repetitions for all the jokes to sink in in my experience, and repetition enhances many of the "classic" jokes...anticipation of the joke adds to the humor, as does social reinforcement (i.e. all the cliches that get thrown around).
The Simpsons is still one of the funniest character-driven shows on TV right now, along with Earl and The Office. The Family Guy and South Park are gag-driven humor, more like animated Saturday Night Live sketches, or the movie Airplane. They make absolutely no attempt to make you care about the characters, who are simply broad caricatures for the gags to play out against. When it's funny, it's really funny. But that's all they have, and as a result each show has a lot of awkward misses (just like SNL).
The Simpsons on the other hand can swing dramatic and ratchet up the tension, which then allows for comic relief and added comedic release. The best example is the death of Maude, which was both an emotional and hilarious episode.
It's a real TV show as opposed to a collection of silly bits...I find it much more rewarding to watch on a regular basis. The Family Guy on the other hand I can drop in and out of whenever I want and there never seems to be any difference.
These are the talking points of people who haven't bought an Apple product and don't intend to. Asking them why Apple is popular is like asking a conservative to explain why someone would support a liberal candidate. You're going to get a pretty biased, inaccurate view. If you want to know why people do something, you'll get the best answer if you simply ask them--not the critics.
And don't be shocked when you get a bunch of different answers. Different people do things for different reasons...successful companies are the ones that provide a lot of good reasons (not just one) to buy their product.
Of course 82% of the people think the government covered up some of what happened on 9/11. The question is so broad as to mean nothing--I would answer yes to such a broad question, and I think all the big conspiracy theories are nuts. I just happen to think that the administration has squashed some of the details of how poorly prepared they were and how poorly they responded.
As for the rest, I don't really care about supposition, vague connections, and unanswered questions. It's not exactly a revelation that certain people have profited in the wake of 9/11...however that has little to any bearing on the question of what brought down the WTC, as it could just as easily be the result of good response as opposed to good conspiracy. People profit during every war; but it is false logic to conclude that therefore those people must have started each war.
The government and military plan for eventualities; but it is wrong to therefore assume that everthing that happens is the result of a military or government plan. The government can plan a plane crash, and a plane can crash--the two are not necessarily connected. Substitute "sneak attack", "insurgency", or "hurricane" (or any other force majeur) into that sentence if you like. Similarity or congruency are simply coincedence in the absence of evidence that proves a direct connection.
I noticed you did not answer my question about what evidence would change your mind on this theory. Here's mine: Present me with real conclusive proof of this specific conspiracy theory and I will sit up and take notice: a person who helped set the charges...paperwork showing that thousands of pounds of explosives were delivered to the WTC by a military contractor...maintenance workers who saw barrels of explosives in empty offices...etc. I need direct, cause-and-effect evidence...often referred to as a "smoking gun." Allusion and supposition don't do it for me.
How about you?
It is the first-hand testimony of expert witnesses.
Hearing loud noises that sounded like explosions is the testimony of an eye-witness. However in the context of a controlled-demolition theory, it is hearsay. A number of things sound like or cause explosions; firefighters are not experts in controlled demolition. I'm not questioning what they heard; I'm questioning the use of it as absolute proof of a controlled demolition.
Why are you assuming that charges would be visible to the public?
Because as far as I know it's not possible to turn hundreds of 55-gallon drums and miles of wire invisible. This is what it would take to bring down buildings the size of WTC 1 or 2 or 7 by controlled demolition. And it's not just the amount of equipment, it's the time needed to set it all up, troubleshoot, and test to make sure it will work when they press the button. Tens of thousands of people moved throughout the WTC buildings every day, presumably including a maintenance staff of hundreds for the building facilities in the core and behind locked doors. You're asking me to believe that somehow no one saw anything, or that they were all in on it.
There are plenty of people who will never buy it.
I'll buy something if it's well sold--this theory is not. But let me turn this around--what would convince YOU that the controlled-demolition theory is wrong? Keeping in mind that the vast preponderance of evidence and expert opinion already points that way. Please be specific about what evidence you still require.
Were used throughout the middle ages in both Asia and Europe. You don't think knights were wearing cast iron do you? The use of steel in Japanese swords dates back at least 500 years from today, for example.
- "They looked like controlled demolitions"...but what is the basis for comparison? How many people repeating this line have ever witnessed or even seen video of an *uncontrolled* demolition of a skyscraper--other than the WTC buildings? In other words the visual similarity is TRUE, however it is not necessarily UNEXPECTED. ALL demolitions of tall buildings will look similar, regardless of how they are initiated. Even if you blow out one side first, the building won't tip over like a coat rack. Remove support and the mass being supported falls--straight down.
n ter_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building _Locations.jpg
- The buildings did not fall neatly into their footprints. Look at this picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Trade_Ce
- There were thousands of people in the buildings that day. The first attack took place around 9am--after many people had arrived at work. In fact the estimate is that at least 10,000 people were in WTC 1 and 2 when the first plane hit. They had arrived by subway, walking, cab, and driving--some had parked in the garage. They proceeded through the building that morning as normal. After the first hit, most of them evacuated safely--almost everyone below the point of impact in both buildings. YET not one of them has come forward with stories of seeing the building pillars in the parking garage wrapped with drums and det wire. No one had stories of elaborately laid wire harnesses throughout the floors of the building. Not that morning or any morning previous.
Wiring a building for controlled demolition is not a quick thing. It takes a long time to load in the explosives and wire it all up safely and reliably. And it's not something easily hidden. It's hard to bring down buildings like the WTC-- a big truck bomb won't do it. You have to distribute a lot of explosive around a lot of the support structure and set it all off in just the right sequence. It would probably be impossible to hide, especially in a building like the WTC towers, where the outer shell carries so much of the weight.
Yes, the firefighters heard noises that sounded like explosions. But I'm not interested in hearsay--I want to hear from the people who eye-witnessed demolition charges and equipment set that morning. Until then I'm not buying it.
Simple physics tells us the melting point of steel is 1100-1600C and a kerosene fire can go up to 600C with good oxygen flow.
And yet for centuries man alloyed and shaped steel by the heat of fires they themselves created--of materials that all burn at a lot less than 1100C.
In other words, there is more to understanding heat than simply looking up the burning temperature of various substances.
Pining for OS 9 is the A #1 best way to spot a hardcore Apple fanboy. Only people who truly fetishize the company and its history miss that OS (or any that preceded it). Those of us who like to get stuff done with our Macs love OS X now.
(Written on an iBook G4 w/10.3, as someone still running a Powermac 6100 with OS 8.6 in my study...but that's because I'm cheap, not because I think it was great.)
That when it comes to preventing dupes, a community approach is no better than an editorial approach. Thus let's have the end of the "Digg is teh better" trolls.
I work for a trade association with a staff of about 400. Because of the nature of trade associations (divided into lots of little side groups), we have about 25 individual Web sites with probably about 7000-9000 pages of content and light Web apps. We outsource our hosting and LAN to a contractor (they have offices within the building though).
We are actually in the process of taking a "Web Team" of 7 people and diffusing it into the Communications department as a whole. We were a cohesive group dedicated to all Web presence inside and out. Now the responsibilities have been sub-divided and spread throughout about 10 people in the Comm. department (not all of them work on Web or e-mail full time). In addition we run a CMS and have about 50 people throughout the organization trained to make basic content updates to the site.
We have grown continuously over the last 5 years despite having a COO who asks us in meetings "Why does the Web site matter? Why do we even need one?" The key for us has been two-fold. First, we define metrics for the online products and show constant improvement. Page views are up year over year, e-commerce is up year-over-year (mostly event registration and publication sales), etc. Second, we enlist supporters throughout the building by making the things people already do easier or more effective by taking it online. We focus HEAVILY on internal customer service and it's very important to keep people in the building happy. We won't get cut because too many people would complain.
It is my personal opinion that our diffusement is only the beginning of the end for "Web Teams." Staff here, even VPs, do not have typists or secretaries taking dication any more. They don't send every memo through the print shop for layout. Some basic facility with typing and the features of Microsoft Word are now just an understood part of corporate life. It is my opinion that as the tools get easier, and the generation turns over, basic facility with the Web will be the same way. I bet within 10 years policy staff will be directly updating their sections of the site themselves, and in 20 VPs will too. They won't be using HTML any more than they use Quark now; they will be using a new tool that makes it easier to work on Web pages--probably a more advanced CMS.
Remember, every generally accepted scientific theory today started life as a fringe theory that the general consensus held was wrong. This is why groups like the NSA, DARPA, CIA etc continue to investigate "stupid" stuff like teleportation, mind control, hyperspace, gravity control, etc. 99% is probably BS, but there's a good bet that some fringe theory or phenomenon today will evolve into generally accepted wisdom within the next 50 years. If you're not looking at the edges of science you won't see where its reach is expanding.
Who will pay to interrupt the Olympic closing ceremonies or buy grilled cheese sandwiches that look like Jesus??
As a U.S. citizen I have to admit that I feel pride as well as outrage at hearing all these stories. The first job of any government is to protect its citizens from international harm, and winning consistently at this sort of international intrigue is one way to do it. In fact I'd say that in some ways it's a good way of accomplishing national security in that it depends more on lying and less on firebombing. (neither being great but firebombing considerably less great in my view)
I know it's wrong to screw our allies, but on the other hand alliances can shift. The U.S. has fought both Japan and Britain on our own soil in the past, and seen many allies turn to enemies (Iraq for instance). There is something to be said for always attempting to maintain an advantage in international relationships. It's not a bridge club after all.
adding that the big costs come from network connectivity, applications and support
Applications don't have to have big costs associated with them.